Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee delays change to renewable portfolio standard, keeps issue in budget for further review
Summary
Committee discussion of House Bill 219, a proposed change to the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS), focused on how lowering the RPS obligation would reduce both electricity rates and the state’s renewable energy fund receipts.
Committee discussion of House Bill 219, a proposed change to the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS), focused on how lowering the RPS obligation would reduce both electricity rates and the state’s renewable energy fund receipts.
Sponsor Representative Michael Vose (Rockingham County) told the committee the bill would reduce the utility obligation to buy renewable energy certificates (RECs) from 220,000 to 70,000 class‑1 RECs per year. “So currently, the RPS calls for a utility obligation to buy 220,000 renewable energy certificates every year ... This bill reduces that obligation from 220,000 rex per year to a 70,000 rex per year,” Vose said, and estimated the change would reduce annual REC spending by roughly $1.25 million under his assumptions.
Vose testified that reduced purchases would cut alternative compliance payments (ACPs) — which flow into the Renewable Energy Fund — and that fund receipts thus would fall by perhaps $1 million to $2 million depending on REC prices. He also said household savings would be modest: “It'll be pennies a month.”
Committee members pressed multiple points: Representative Vivo noted a statutory Department of Energy review and asked why the Legislature should act before the DOE’s November report; Representative Rung and others urged caution and recommended delaying any change. Representative Sweeney moved to retain the bill for consideration as part of the budget, and Representative Griffin seconded; the vote in committee to retain HB 219 was 5‑4.
Context: The bill was described by Vose as non‑companion to related proposals that change how any refunded money might be handled. Members discussed an amendment idea to put an effective date in the general budget bill (House Bill 2) to delay implementation and synchronize any changes with other funding proposals.
Next steps: The committee directed staff to prepare language for a House Bill 2 amendment (to make the effective date June 30, 2027 in one suggestion) and to continue to weigh the DOE study posted for November 1, 2025.
